IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. : CIVIL ACTION

MARY J. BROWN and KEVIN WAITE :

and on behalf of :

THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, DELAWARE, :

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FLORIDA, :

HAWAII, ILLINOIS, LOUISIANA, :

MASSACHUSETTS, NEVADA, TENNESSEE, :

TEXAS AND VIRGINIA :

:

v. : 

:

CAREMARKPCS,f/k/a ADVANCE PARADIGM :

INC., a direct subsidiary of :

CAREMARK RX, Inc., a Delaware :

Corporation : 02-9236

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of October 2005, upon consideration

of the Relators’ Joint Motion That the Court Exercise

Jurisdiction and Require the States to Make Their Intervention

Decisions (Paper #80), the Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in

Regard to Supplemental Jurisdiction (Paper #78), the United

States’ Memorandum Regarding Disposition of Pending State Claims

(Paper #81), the Relators’ Joint Reply to Defendant’s Memorandum

of Law in Regard to Supplemental Jurisdiction (Paper #84), the

State of Florida’s Brief Regarding Jurisdiction (Paper #76), the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ letter regarding supplemental

jurisdiction (Paper #82), and the City of Vidalia’s Brief in

Support of City’s Intervention and in Support of the Court

Exercising Jurisdiction (Paper # 96), following a hearing on

August 11, 2005, at which counsel for all parties were heard, it

appearing that:

A. This qui tam action was brought on behalf of the United States

under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, and of

eleven states and the District of Columbia under each of their

respective false claims statutes.

B. Among the entities on whose behalf the relators brought this

claim, the United States, the State of Florida, the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, and the City of Visalia, a California political

Case 2:02-cv-09236-NS Document 120 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 3
1In their Joint Motion that the Court Exercise Jurisdiction,

Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), Over

State qui tam Claims and Require the States to Make Their

Intervention Decisions, relators argue that Section 3732(b) of

the False Claims Act constitutes “a direct and independent grant

of jurisdiction to district courts over parallel state claims”

and imply that the court does not have discretion to decline to

exercise the jurisdiction granted under 31 U.S.C. § 3732(b). 

Section 3732(b) allows district courts to exercise

jurisdiction over state law claims related to a claim under the

federal False Claims Act, over which the court has original

jurisdiction. Although this appears to be a matter of first

impression, the Court does not believe the grant of supplemental

jurisdiction in the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3732(b),

overrides the statute governing supplemental jurisdiction, 28

U.S.C. § 1367; the discretion whether or not to exercise

jurisdiction after the federal law claims have been dismissed

continues to apply. 

 Relators did not address the applicability of 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) even if there were original rather

than supplemental jurisdiction.

subdivision, have intervened. The States of California,

Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas have not yet

made their intervention decisions. Claims on behalf of the

States of Hawaii and Nevada (Counts VI and X) were voluntarily

dismissed on September 6, 2005. 

C. Following settlement between the United States, relators, and

AdvancePCS, all claims under the federal False Claims Act, 31

U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., were dismissed on September 8, 2005. 

There is no diversity jurisdiction.

D. All remaining claims in plaintiffs’ complaint allege

violations of state laws.

E. There is no diversity jurisdiction. This court has

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims

under 31 U.S.C. § 3732 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).1

F. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over

which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

G. When a district court dismisses the claim over which it has

original jurisdiction before trial, it must decline to decide the

pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy,

convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative

Case 2:02-cv-09236-NS Document 120 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 3
justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123

(3d Cir. 2000).

H. Principles of economy, convenience, comity, and fairness

suggest this action should be dismissed without prejudice so that

the remaining state law claims may be adjudicated by the

respective state courts. Exercising supplemental jurisdiction

would require the court to adjudicate claims arising under nine

different states’ and the District of Columbia’s false claims

statutes. These claims can more economically be adjudicated by

the respective state courts, as the witnesses and documents

relating to the alleged false claims presented to the different

states are more likely located in those states and the courts

have greater expertise and familiarity with their own state laws.

The dismissal will cause little inconvenience to the plaintiffs,

since this litigation is still at an early stage with respect to

the state, rather than federal, claims. The plaintiffs remain

free to pursue their claims in the respective state courts; no

unfairness results from the court’s order as the claims arising

from state law will be dismissed without prejudice.. See 28

U.S.C. § 1367(d) (state period of limitations is tolled for 30

days after dismissal of a claim over which a district court had

supplemental jurisdiction).

It is ORDERED that:

1. Relators’ Joint Motion That the Court Exercise

Jurisdiction and Require the States to Make Their Intervention

Decisions is DENIED.

2. All remaining claims in plaintiffs’ Third Amended

Complaint (Paper #61) (Counts II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, XI,

XII, XIII, XIV) are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 /s/ Norma L. Shapiro 

S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-09236-NS Document 120 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 3